Mr. Speaker, good public policy is based on sound research. That is why I am glad that this week my department is sponsoring a national convention of researchers, public policymakers and practitioners who are interested in issues that touch the lives of Canadians: children and their families; the issues of inclusion, skills and lifelong learning.

I anticipate positive results from this conference that will help us all improve the quality of life of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and again it is on the $24 security fee.

The transport committee released a report entitled “Building a Transportation Security Culture: Aviation as the Starting Point”, and in it, recommendation 14 states:

All stakeholders including airports, air carriers, airline passengers and/or residents of Canada contribute to the cost of improved aviation security.

This recommendation was supported unanimously at committee, including by the minister's own parliamentary secretary. Why would he ask the transport committee to come up with recommendations if he is going to ignore them, and not only ignore them but knife taxpayers to boot?

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this is an air security charge to be paid for by the users of the airlines. That is where the bulk of the $2.2 billion will be required. The Canadian taxpayer is generally absorbing the bulk of the security package that we put forth.

This has been generally very well received. It is an understandable and fair approach to the security package.

I have the honour to inform the House that Mr. Randy White, of the electoral district of Langley--Abbotsford, has been appointed member of the Board of Internal Economy in place of Mr. John Reynolds, member for the electoral district of West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the various parties in the House and I believe you would find the House in agreement that we immediately put to the House the motion to concur in the notice of ways and means that was tabled yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada at the meeting of the subcommittee on future security and defence capabilities of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly held in Romania and Bulgaria from December 9 to December 13, 2001.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-424, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breach of a conditional sentence order).

Mr. Speaker, I thank and congratulate my colleague from Prince George--Peace River who has a longstanding interest in the issue as well.

The criminal code amendment would in essence bring greater consistency and a clear distinction to the current parameters of the usage of conditional sentences. Upon the breach of a conditional sentence which is very much an exception or a last chance afforded to an offender, the amendment would in essence result in the immediate revocation of the conditional sentence and the serving of the remainder of the sentence in custody within the parameters of the sentence that was meted out.

The adoption of the criminal code amendment would result in a more fair and equitable system of justice as well as send out an important message under our sentencing principle of general and specific deterrence.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-425, an act to amend the Criminal Code (keeping child pornography in manner that is not reasonably secure from access by others).

Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleague for his seconding of the amendment.

The intention of the bill flows from the consequences of the Sharpe decision which in essence allowed for a very slim and narrow definition of what would otherwise be deemed criminal possession of child pornography.

The amendment would control access to child pornography. It would create an offence for individuals who are, for reasons known only to them, in possession of such material and who recklessly make it available in any way, shape or form to another individual.

The bill is aimed at putting a reverse onus on individuals to prove they have been reasonable in the control and access of such material which is certainly distasteful to most Canadians. It applies at all times when the person is accessing the material.

The bill is aimed at giving a clear definition to what the supreme court in its wisdom handed down in the Sharpe decision.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-426,an act to amend the Criminal Code (destruction or desecration of national flag).

Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a time in the history of our country when we want to protect the image and the symbol of this country it is now. People in all provinces represented across the House need to be made aware that on a continual basis our flag is destroyed and desecrated without any lawful punishment whatsoever.

This amendment to the criminal code would make it very clear to those who desecrate and destroy our flag that there are punitive measures for doing so. Individuals doing so will stand trial under the criminal code because this would make that act punishable by law.